Thinking about Oral Reading Fluency as
an Index of Reading Competence:
Conceptual and Measurement Issues
Joseph Torgesen, Steve Nettles, Yaacov Petscher
Florida State University and the Florida Center
for Reading Research
DIBELS Summit, March, 2006
Topics to be covered:
1. Some information we should all understand about
measures of oral reading fluency and their utility as
indices of early reading growth
2. Using measures of Oral Reading Fluency to
estimate school level instructional effectiveness
Relationships across grades within schools
Stability across years within schools
Relationships to other measures of school
effectiveness
Some important background facts:
1. Never in the history of this country has a single set of
measures for reading in K-3 so dominated the
educational landscape in as DIBELS is currently
doing.
2. The Reading First program has provided a significant
impetus for the wide-spread adoption of DIBELS
measures because of its standards for evidence of
reliability and validity for early reading assessments
3. There are many folks in the country who resent the
imposition of these standards for the reading
assessments acceptable within Reading First, and there
are other groups whose assessments are now being
used less than previously.
Some important background facts:
4. Its natural for any widely used instrument to come
under increased research scrutiny, and there is likely to
be “special energy” for a critical examination of
DIBELS measures
Therefore….
Users and promoters of the DIBELS measures must be
well informed about both their strengths and
weaknesses, and we should also be actively contributing
to research that will lead to increased understanding of
their limitations and to improvements in their use.
A focus on oral reading fluency….
1. It is arguably the most important of the DIBELS
measures
2. It is the primary assessment of growth in reading skill
during grades 1-3 in the DIBELS system
3. Although it is a measure of accuracy and rate of oral
reading for grade level text, it has been described
theoretically as a good index of overall reading
competence
ORF as an index of reading competence….
“In practice, a high number of words read correctly per
minute, when placed in the proper developmental
perspective, indicate efficient word-level processing, a
robust vocabulary knowledge base, and meaningful
comprehension of the text.” (Kame’enui & Simmons, 2001)
“ …the fluency with which an individual translates text
into spoken words should function as an indicator not
only of word recognition skill but also as an indication of
an individual’s comprehension of that text (Fuchs, Fuchs,
Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001))
ORF as an index of reading competence….
“ Fluency is an important focus of instruction that
encompasses but extends beyond accurate word
recognition and is a causal determinant of higher order
skills such as reading comprehension (Good, Simmons, &
Kame’enui, 2001)
A focus on oral reading fluency….
1. It is arguably the most important of the DIBELS
measures
2. It is the primary assessment of growth in reading skill
during grades 1-3 in the DIBELS system
3. Although it is a measure of accuracy and rate of oral
reading for grade level text, it has been described
theoretically as a good index of overall reading
competence
4. It is strongly correlated with reliable measures of
reading comprehension, and is a good predictor of
end-of-year performance on these measures
Most important criticisms….
1. Reliance on a single measure like ORF for progress
monitoring can potentially confuse teachers, and
mislead their instruction if they come to believe that a
principle goal is “fast reading”
2. When students perform the ORF task, they do not
typically engage in deep levels of comprehension.
“Speed Reading Without Comprehension, Predicting Little”
(Pressley, Hilden, Shankland, submitted for publication)
3. It is not an accurate enough predictor to serve as the
primary monitor of growth in early reading competence
So, what about the relationship between ORF
and reading comprehension?
Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with
most falling around .70.
The strength of the relationship depends
upon such things as:
The measure of reading comprehension
N=218
R=.76
N=218
R=.56
Correlations range from about .50 to .90, with
most falling around .70.
The strength of the relationship depends
upon such things as:
The measure of reading comprehension
Age/grade level of students
Reading First
1st grade
r = .79
2nd grade
r = .70
3rd grade
r = .69
Representative Sample
3rd r = .76
7th r = .66
10th r = .57
Schatschneider, et al., 2004)
These correlations indicate that performance on brief
measures of oral reading fluency is strongly
correlated with performance on measures of reading
comprehension.
However, they don’t tell us directly how useful the
ORF measures actually are in identifying students
likely to struggle on comprehension measures
For that, we need predictive utility data
Hi risk
Mod. Risk
Low Risk
Prediction from first of year in third grade
90
10
19
3rd Grade-MASS
25
Florida
Orf > 78
46
Orf from 53 to 77
20
31,000
students
<53
30
Percent Grade level on FCAT
40
40
Orf > 78
50
Orf from 53 to 77
60
72
<53
70
Percent Proficient on MCAS
80
86
3,339 students
The More complex Question of Causality
Is there a causal relationship between ORF and reading
comprehension, or is the relationship only correlational?
The predictive utility of ORF measures do not require that
the relationship between ORF and RC be causal in nature
However, the recommendation to teach ORF in order to
have an impact on Reading Fluency is based on a causal
assumption.
What evidence do we have that there is a causal
connection?
What mechanisms or skills mediate that connection?
Some definitions of reading fluency
“the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly,
effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious
attention to the mechanics of reading, such as
decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284).
Five common methods for identifying words in
text (Ehri, 2002)
1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes
to form recognizable words (decoding)
2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a
more advanced form of decoding)
3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are
referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly
and effortlessly with practice
4. By analogizing to words already known by sight
5. By predicting words from context
Five common methods for identifying words in
text (Ehri, 1999)
1. By sounding out and blending graphemes into phonemes
to form recognizable words (decoding)
2. By pronouncing common spelling patters as chunks (a
more advanced form of decoding)
3. By retrieving words from memory. Such words are
referred to as “sight words.” Retrieval happens quickly
and effortlessly with practice
4. By analogizing to words already known by sight
5. By predicting words from context
Although all these methods for reading words become more
fluent with practice, fluency increases most dramatically as
more words become identifiable “by sight.”
These are iNTirEStinG and cHallinGinG
times for anyone whose pRoFEshuNle
responsibilities are rEelaTed in any way to
liTiRucY outcomes among school children.
For, in spite of all our new NaWLEGe
about reading and reading iNstRukshun,
there is a wide-spread concern that public
EdgUkAshuN is not as eFfEktIve as it
shood be in tEecHiNg all children to read.
The report of the National Research
Council pointed out that these concerns
about literacy derive not from declining
levels of literacy in our schools but rather
from recognition that the demands for
high levels of literacy are rapidly
accelerating in our society.
The Fluency Challenge…..
“One of the great mysteries to challenge
researchers is how people learn to read and
comprehend text rapidly and with ease. A large
part of the explanation lies in how they learn to
read individual words. Skilled readers are able to
look at thousands of words and immediately
recognize their meanings without any effort.”
Ehri, L. C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications
for teaching. In R. Stainthorp and P. Tomlinson (Eds.) Learning and teaching
reading. London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.
December, 3rd Grade
Correct word/minute=60
19th percentile
The Surprise Party
My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom
planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with
the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I
couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise.
I helped mom organize the guest list and write the
invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was
included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and
return addresses on them…..
December, 3rd Grade
Correct word/minute=128
78th percentile
The Surprise Party
My dad had his fortieth birthday last month, so my mom
planned a big surprise party for him. She said I could assist with
the party but that I had to keep the party a secret. She said I
couldn’t tell my dad because that would spoil the surprise.
I helped mom organize the guest list and write the
invitations. I was responsible for making sure everyone was
included. I also addressed all the envelopes and put stamps and
return addresses on them…..
Some definitions of reading fluency
“the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly,
effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious
attention to the mechanics of reading, such as
decoding” (Meyer and Felton (1999, p. 284).
“freedom from word recognition problems that
might hinder comprehension” (Literacy Dictionary, Harris &
Hodges, 1995, p. 85).
“Fluency is the ability to read text quickly,
accurately, and with proper expression”
National Reading Panel, 2000
“Fluency involves accurate reading at a minimal rate
with appropriate prosodic features (expression) and
deep understanding” Hudson, Mercer, and Lane (2000, p. 16).
If comprehension is included as part of the definition of
fluency, then questions about the causal relationships
between fluency and comprehension disappear
However, when we assess ORF, we do not directly
assess comprehension, we assess rate of reading
The question we address here is whether there are
causal relationships between the processes that
contribute to individual differences in oral reading
rate and the processes that are required for good
performance on measures of reading
comprehension
Within current reading theory, we can identify two
major ways that individual differences in ORF (as it is
commonly measured) might be related causally to
individual differences in reading comprehension
Efficient, or automatic, identification of words
allows the reader to focus more attention on the
meaning of the passage
Comprehension processes themselves may cause
individual differences in reading rate. These
comprehension processes influence both fluency
and comprehension tasks.
Within current reading theory, we can identify two
major ways that individual differences in ORF (as it is
commonly measured) might be related causally to
individual differences in reading comprehension
Efficient, or automatic, identification of words
allows the reader to focus more attention on the
meaning of the passage
Comprehension processes themselves may cause
individual differences in reading rate. These
comprehension processes influence both fluency
and comprehension tasks.
The idea that automatic word recognition processes
make it possible to focus more attentional resources
on comprehension was initially popularized by the
work of LaBerge and Samuals (1974)
They developed a model of reading with the concept
of automaticity as one of its central features
1. A complex skill like reading requires the rapid and
efficient coordination of many processes
2. If enough processes are executed automatically, then
the attentional load remains within tolerable limits.
3. Word identification processes are more likely to
become automatic than comprehension processes
“There is…evidence that automaticity is
acquired only in consistent task
environments, as when stimuli are mapped
consistently onto the same responses
throughout practice. Most of the properties
of automaticity develop through practice in
such environments.” (Logan, 1988)
“In fact, the automaticity with which skillful
readers recognize words is the key to the
whole system…The reader’s attention can
be focused on the meaning and message of
a text only to the extent that it’s free from
fussing with the words and letters.”
Marilyn Adams
Why is fluency important?
Because it provides a bridge between
word recognition and comprehension.
“Fluency, it seems, serves as a bridge between word
recognition and comprehension. Because when fluent
readers are able to identify words accurately and
automatically, they can focus most of their attention on
comprehension.
They can make connections among the ideas in the text
and between the text and their background knowledge.
In other words, fluent readers can recognize words and
comprehend at the same time.
Less fluent readers, however, must focus much of their
attention on word recognition…The result is that nonfluent readers have little attention to devote to
comprehension” (Osborn, Lehr, and Hiebert, 2003)
The Evidence:
When reading rate is increased through the use of
repeated reading techniques, comprehension also
increases (16 studies-NRP report)
Effect size for fluency = .44
Effect size for comprehension = .35
Problem: a variety of techniques were actually mixed
together in these findings
A more recent meta-analysis focusing only on repeated
reading studies reported these effect sizes (THERRIEN, 2004)
Effect size for fluency = .50
Effect size for comprehension= .25
Problem: processes other than word reading efficiency
might be enhanced by repeated reading practice
The Evidence (cont.):
What we need is evidence that practice which focuses
solely on increasing word reading efficiency can also
increase text reading fluency and reading comprehension
Can practice specifically targeted on word reading
efficiency improve fluency and comprehension?
What do we mean by context-free practice?:
animal
faster
happy
never
time
sleep
rabbit
The Evidence (cont.):
Recently, Levy, Abello, and Lysnchuk(1997) reported a
carefully controlled study with 4th grade poor readers in
which context free practice to increase speed of word
identification positively affected both fluency and
comprehension
Critical features
1. intensive fluency practice-every word recognized in
less than 1 seconds
2. Used long stories that places particular demands on
fluency
3. Stories were at the appropriate level of difficulty for
each student
To summarize:
Increasing rate through repeated reading practice also
increases comprehension
Not direct evidence for a causal connection between
reading fluency and reading comprehension
It is evidence that repeated reading practice, by itself, can
improve both fluency and comprehension
There has been at least one demonstration that increasing
rate through isolated word practice can increase reading
comprehension
Evidence that efficiency of single word reading processes
has a causal influence on comprehension - beginning
Across these definitions of fluency, we can identify two
major ways that individual differences in ORF might be
related causally to individual differences in reading
comprehension
Efficient identification of words allow a focus on the
meaning of the passage
Comprehension processes themselves may
contribute to individual differences in reading rate.
These comprehension processes are shared
between fluency and comprehension tasks.
The Evidence:
Some level of comprehension is occurring for most
students as they read the words on ORF passages.
Although students remember more of the content from ORF
stories if prompted to remember, they do remember a significant
amount with only a cue to “do their best reading” (O’Shea, Sindelar, &
O’Shea, 1987)
There is experimental evidence to indicate that comprehension
processes (identifying anaphoric referents, integrating
propositions in text with background knowledge, inferencing)
can also become automatized with reading practice. (Perfetti, 1995)
This means they can occur without the specific “intention to
comprehend.”
The Evidence:
How could automatically occurring comprehension
processes affect rate of reading on ORF tasks?
There is experimental evidence for fast acting,
automatic spreading of semantic activation thast
does not consume attention resources…words are
primed for easier recognition (Posner & Snyder,
1975).
The Evidence:
Jenkins, et al., (2003) asked 113 4th grade students
with a broad range of reading ability to perform three
tasks:
1. ORF following standard (best reading) cue.
2. ORF with words in passage arranged in random
order in a list
3. ITBS reading comprehension test
The Evidence:
WPM Text = 127
WPM List = 83
Processes unique to reading meaningful text supported
more fluent reading of words – spreading activation based
on comprehension facilitates fluency – is one possibility
Correlation with ITBS
Text = .83
List = .53
Test format that allowed comprehension processes (presumably
operating in both ORF and comprehension test) to influence
rate led to higher correlation – word reading that is influenced
by comprehension is more correlated with comprehension than
just word reading efficiency alone
Conclusions:
1. Both single word identification processes and
comprehension processes contribute to individual
differences in oral reading fluency for text
a. At the lower end of the ORF continuum, word reading
efficiency makes a stronger unique contribution in
explaining variance in fluency
b.At the higher end of the ORF continuum,
comprehension processes make a stronger unique
contribution to explaining variance in fluency.
Individual Differences in Oral Reading Fluency are
influenced by different factors, depending on level of
fluency
Single word reading
efficiency
2nd
16th
Automatic comprehension
processes
50th
Standard Scores
84th
98th
Conclusions (cont.):
ORF is correlated with reading comprehension
because
1. Both ORF and reading comprehension depend to
some extent on efficiency of single word reading
processes
2. Both ORF speed and reading comprehension
scores are influenced to some extent by the
efficiency of comprehension processes that
facilitate performance on both tasks
Reading Processes measured by ORF facilitate
performance on tests of Reading Comprehension
Next question: Are the two direct causal connections
the only reason that ORF is related to performance on
tests of reading comprehension?
A reminder about correlations
A can be correlated with B because:
A causes B (good reading rate enables comp.)
B causes A (comp. enables good reading rate)
Both A and B are caused by C
(comp. and rate are both influenced by experience)
Fluency can be correlated with comprehension
because individual differences in both skills are
caused by differences in:
Reading experience
Home environment and support
Motivation to succeed in school
Reading
Experience
Motivation to
succeed in
school
Fluency
Reading comprehension through
vocabulary increases
Fluency
Reading comprehension through
development of reading strategies
“…motivated students usually want to
understand text content fully and therefore,
process information deeply. As they read
frequently with these cognitive purposes,
motivated students gain in reading
comprehension proficiency”
Guthrie, J.T. (et al.) (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and
engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 403-421.
Differences in SES cause differences among
students in both comprehension and fluency
Lower SES students:
 Lower vocabulary
Lower Comprehension
 Less support for reading in
the home –less practice
Lower Comprehension
Lower Fluency
 Less preparation in
preschool environment for
early acquisition of
alphabetic principle
Lower Fluency
 Less exposure to books
 Fewer opportunities to
develop rich content
knowledge
Lower Comprehension
Lower Fluency
Lower Comprehension
Differences in SES cause differences among
students in both comprehension and fluency
Differences in learning opportunities and motivation for
school learning that are associated with differences in
SES cause both:
Lower
Comprehension
???
Lower
Fluency
N=218
ORF R=.76
Vocab R=.69
NVR R = .48
Mem R = .35
Total R2 = 71%
Common = 43.5%
ORF = 18.9%
Vocab = 7.1%
NVR = 1.2%
Mem = .3%
ORF Unique R = .43
What is the practical meaning of these analyses in terms of
the potential impact of interventions that increase just
reading fluency
If we based our estimate of the impact of these
interventions on the raw correlation between ORF and
comprehension, we would expect:
A 10 WPM gain on ORF would produce a 12.5 point gain
on the FCAT
If we controlled for the joint, and shared, contribution of
vocabulary, nonverbal reasoning, and memory, we would
expect:
10 WPM gain on ORF would produce an 8.6 point gain
on the FCAT
Conclusions from analysis of causal relations
between ORF and reading comprehension:
Interventions that focus directly on increasing oral
reading fluency are likely to have an impact on
performance on broad comprehension measures for
two reasons:
They are likely to increase the efficiency of word
reading processes that has an enabling effect on
reading comprehension
If students read for meaning when they practice, they
are likely to establish automatic comprehension
processes that will help them on comprehension tests
as well as help to increase their reading fluency
Something else to think about:
“Fluency is the ability to read text quickly,
accurately, and with proper expression”
National Reading Panel
What is the role of prosody in fluent reading?
Why is prosody important?
Should teachers spend time modeling
prosody and encouraging students to read
with expression?
What are the causal relationships among
prosody, comprehension, and reading rate?
Possible Causal connections:
If children will read with expression, it helps them
understand what they are reading
Prosody indicates that the child is apprehending
the meaning of what is being read-prosody reflects
comprehension
The relationship between prosody and reading
comprehension
Certainly, when speech is given with proper prosody
and expression, it helps the listener to comprehend
Does it work the same way for reading? Does the
reader listen to his/her own prosody as an aid to
comprehension?
The evidence is not definitive on this point, but it
seems most likely that prosody is primarily a reflection
of comprehension, rather than a cause of it.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., et al., Becoming a Fluent Reader: Reading Skill and Prosodic
Features in the Oral Reading of Young Readers, Journal of Educational Psychology,
2004, 119-129
Purpose of these indices within Reading First
in Florida
To provide a regular stimulus throughout the year for
principals, coaches and teachers to look more closely at
their student data
To provide an additional index of school improvement from
year to year in reading first.
To help identify schools that are performing poorly on
indices that have compelling face validity
LNF
PSF
NWF
Patterns of Performance Categorized as “Initial” or “Grade
Level” performance at Assessment 1 in First Grade
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Smith, S., Simmons, D., Kame'enui, E., & Wallin, J.
(In press).Reviewing outcomes: Using DIBELS to evaluate a school's core
curriculum and system of additional intervention in kindergarten. In S. R. Vaughn
& K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching
and learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Also available on the DIBELS website.
PSF
NWF
ORF
Patterns of Performance Categorized as “Initial” or “Grade
Level” performance at Assessment 4 in First Grade
LNF
PSF
NWF
Patterns of Performance Categorized as “at risk” at
Assessment 1 in First Grade
PSF
NWF
ORF
Patterns of Performance Categorized as “at risk” at
Assessment 4 in First Grade
Core and Intervention effectiveness in year 1 and 2
K
year 1
year 2
ECI
82%
87%
1st
year 1
year 2
58%
65%
14%
15%
2nd year 1
year 2
70%
72%
6%
5%
3rd
84%
81%
15%
14%
year 1
year 2
EI
45%
55%
.50
Average ECI for grades 1-3
.90
.02
.25
Average EI for grades 1-3
To what
extent are
EI and ECI
influenced
by “degree
of difficulty”
of schools?
60
Average = 73%
50
Sch Yr. 04-05
100 %
40
30
20
40 %
10
Std. Dev = 15.97
Mean = 74.4
N = 315.00
0
0
0.
10
.0
90
.0
80
.0
70
.0
60
.0
50
.0
40
.0
30
.0
20
.0
10
0
0.
Percent Freefree/reduced
Reduced
Percent
lunch students
100 %
40
Average = 61%
Sch Yr 04-05
30
20
10 %
10
Std. Dev = 25.32
Mean = 59.9
N = 315.00
0
0
0.
10
.0
90
.0
80
.0
70
.0
60
.0
50
.0
40
.0
30
.0
20
.0
10
0
0.
Percent minority students
Percent Minority
100
0.0%
Average = 12%
80
Sch yr 04-05
60
40
70.0%
20
Std. Dev = 16.10
Mean = 14.3
N = 315.00
0
0
0.
10
.0
90
.0
80
.0
70
.0
60
.0
50
.0
40
.0
30
.0
20
.0
10
0
0.
Percent LEPEnglish Language Learners
Percent
Percent of variance accounted for
Relationship of student demographics to various
outcome measures
90
81
80
1st=9%
70
2nd =19%
3rd =8%
60
50
1st=3%
2nd =7%
3rd =5%
40
30
20
50
23
18
6
10
ECI
EI
ORF
Reading Comp. PPVT
Are ECI’s and EI’s consistent across grades
within schools?
ECI Average from Year 1 and Year 2
2nd .31
3rd .19 .33
1st 2nd
EI Average from Year 1 and Year 2
2nd .03
3rd .14 .30
1st 2nd
What about consistency within grade across
years and overall consistency?
ECI correlations between year 1 and year 2
1st
2nd
3rd
All
.35
.26
.20
.48
EI correlations between year 1 and year 2
1st
2nd
3rd
All
.21
.21
.11
.21
What about consistency within extreme
groups?
For the ECI index
Top
Year 2
quartile
schools
in Year 1
55% in top quartile
75% in top half
7% in bottom quartile
For the EI index
Top
Year 2
quartile
schools
in Year 1
41% in top quartile
60% in top half
18% in bottom quartile
What about consistency within extreme
groups?
For the ECI index
Bottom
Year 2
quartile
schools
in Year 1
10% in top quartile
74% in bottom half
54% in bottom quartile
For the EI index
Bottom
Year 2
quartile
schools
in Year 1
8% in top quartile
63% in bottom half
29% in bottom quartile
Improvements in ECI and EI in relationship to
Improvements in Reading Comp. Outcomes
Schools are expected to increase the percentage of
students reading at grade level each year they
implement reading first
If a school increased its ECI and EI from the first year to
the second year, was this associated with
improvements in the percent of students at grade
level?
Changes in percent of students at grade level are
calculated by subtracting the the percent at grade level
in the 1st year from the percent at grade level in the 2nd
year. Positive numbers represent improvement.
-.15
+.17
YY change
in %ECI
of students
achieving
grade
Average
for grades
1-3
level standard for reading comp. In grades 1-3
-.23
+.27
YY change
in ECI
grades1-3
Average
ECIacross
for grades
1-3
Relationships between improvement in
DIBELS indices and improvement in reading
comprehension outcomes
ECI
ECI+EI
Grade 1
.41
.37
Grade 2
.20
.21
Grade 3
.17
.24
Overall
.33
.43
Conclusions about the ECI and EI Indices
1. They have face validity as indicators of core instructional
effectiveness and intervention effectiveness
2. The ECI is more responsive to school level “degree of
difficulty than is the EI index
3. Neither index shows strong consistency across grade
levels within schools
4. Both indices also showed marked lack of overall stability
within grade levels from year 1 to year 2
5. There was a reasonable degree of year to year stability
when extreme groups were considered. It is not common
for schools to move from the highest to lowest quartile in
successive years on either index.
Conclusions about the ECI and EI Indices
6. Year to year improvement on the indices was more
strongly correlated with improvement in reading
comprehension at first grade than for grades 2 and 3.
7. Overall, changes in instructional effectiveness as
measured by the ECI and EI were modestly related to YY
improvements in percent of students at grade level in
reading comprehension.
Now, to finish on two inspirational notes…
Inspirational Note #1: What DIBELS has done
for Florida
1. It has helped us document big changes that have occurred in
instruction in kindergarten in RF schools
2. It has helped us clearly see that our first grade instruction in
the alphabetic principal (phonics) is not strong enough to
meet the needs of many of the students in our RF schools..
3. It has helped us clearly see that students in second grade do
not make the necessary growth in reading fluency from the
beginning to the end of the year
4. It has also documented the fact that, although third grade
teachers are “holding their own” in fluency development for
their students, the students enter third grade with fluency
levels that are way too low.
Inspirational note #2: A reason for working
toward continuous improvement….
Thank You
www.fcrr.org
Science of reading
section
References:
Adams, M. J. (1991). A talk with Marilyn Adams. Language Arts, 68, 206-212
Ehri, L.C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications
for teaching. In R. Stainthorp and P. Tomlinson (Eds.) Learning and teaching
reading. London: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.D., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-259.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Kame’enui, E.J. (2001). The importance and
decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational
reading skills for third-grade high-stakes assessment. Scientific Studies of Reading,
5, 257-288.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B. & Pullen, P.C. (2005). Reading Fluency Assessment and
Instruction: What, Why, and How? The Reading Teacher (in press)
Hudson, R.F., Mercer, C.D., & Lane, H.B. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A
paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D.C. (2001). Introduction to this Issue: The DNA of
reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 203-210.
Jenkins, J.R., Fuchs, L.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S.L. (2003).
Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719-729.
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychologist, 6, 293-323.
Levy, B.A. (2001). Moving the bottom: Improving reading fluency. In M. Wolf (Ed.),
Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain. (pp. 357-382). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Levy, B.A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to
reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 173-188.
Logan, G.D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological
Review, 95, 492-527.
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old
approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
Washington, D.C.
Osborn, J., Lehr, F., & Hiebert, E.H. (2003). A Focus on Fluency. Monograph
published by Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Copies available at
www.prel.org/programs/rel/rel.asp.
O'Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O'Shea, D. J. (1987). The effects of repeated
reading and attentional cues on the reading fluency and comprehension of leaming
disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 103-109.
Perfetti, C.A. (1995). Cognitive research can inform reading education. Journal of
Research in Reading, 18, 106-115.
Pressley, M. P., Hilden, K. & Shankland, R. (submitted). An evaluation of endgrade-3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Speed reading
without comprehension, predicting little.Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso
(Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55–85).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rasinski, T.V. (2003). The Fluent Reader. New York: Scholastic
Schatschneider, C., Buck, J., Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Hassler, L., Hecht, S., &
Powell-Smith, K. (2005). A multivariate study of factors that contribute to individual
differences in performance on the Florida Comprehensive Reading Assessment
Test. Technical Report # 5, Florida Center for Reading Research, Tallahassee, FL.
Schwanenflugel, P.J., Hamilton, A.M., Kuhn, M.R., Wisenbaker, J.M., & Stahl, S.A.
(2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral
reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 119-129.
Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and Comprehension Gains as a Result of Repeated
Reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252-261
Guthrie, J.T. (et al.) (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and
engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 403-421.
Descargar

Document